“Is the term “Rosetta Stone” hype? Probably. But that’s irrelevant to the larger discussion and really it’s a smokescreen to say, “It’s not a ‘Rosetta stone’, it’s just a fossil”. Sure it’s “just a fossil”, but it’s exactly what Ken Ham and others who reject evolution claim doesn’t exist.”
Huh? You mean it’s “kind of” evidence to support a theory that can’t be supported without what this MIGHT be?
I have no idea what you are asking me. Did you read my post to you carefully, with an open mind?